Derrek Konrad

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if this unites Canadians against what the government stands for on this issue, so be it.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will just quote his own health minister speaking in 1996:

The answer of course is that when there are resolutions, as there are today involving victims rights, members of this party vote as they see fit.

I already told the House this morning that I will vote in favour of the resolution because I share the objectives expressed by the hon. member. I expect that members on the government side will vote as they see fit.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I did not think the member would be trying to make political hay out of this motion.

The Reform Party listens to Canadians. Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians want the victims of hepatitis C to be compensated. Also the Reform Party was founded on a set of principles and it acts on principle.

I reject the hon. member to the left of me making some sort of comparison. This is a policy many Canadians want implemented in the country. Something of this nature is doing the right thing. It is acting on principle which is supported by the people of Canada.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to continue the debate on this issue. It seems we have not yet been able to change the government's mind on this and we hope to continue to raise the issue until we have it convinced it is wrong, that it is dividing Canadians into different groups on the basis that the day before yesterday some contracted hepatitis C and some did today and so they do not qualify for help.

In 1993 the federal government commissioned an enquiry to examine what happened, to look into the regulation, management and operation of the blood system. It issued a report and made some recommendations, among them that there should be compensation paid to those who suffered as a result of it. They are suffering. They are suffering a lot.

They have not come to Ottawa for a holiday. There is no place to take a holiday right now. They are here because they are hurting.

It is not our rhetoric that matters. It will not betray us for what we are. What betrays us is our actions. High flown words and intentions do not do anything. It is our actions that speak loudly.

The Minister of Health said: “We Liberals feel deep sympathy for those who were infected prior to January 1, 1986”. That gets them nothing. They cannot take that to the bank. They cannot live it in health. They cannot work because somebody felt sorry for them. They cannot put their children through university. Their wife, who may end up being an early widow, that is not any help to her. It is not going to help them to and from hospitals and all the expenses. This makes me sick.

Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians want hepatitis C victims to be compensated for loss of health, livelihood, years of life, enjoyment and productivity. Canadians know what is right. Over there they do not know what is right.

What do they get from the Liberal government? Back alley brutality. I think it needs to be made clear just what constitutes the government in this country. When I came here as a rookie there were seminars held for rookie members of parliament. What did they say? In Canada we have the government within the parliament and particularly the government is drawn from the party with the most members elected. This time it was the Liberals. The way they are going it will be the last time.

I think it would be a real good idea if we painted all those chairs another colour so that those members of the governing party who are not members of the government would be able to see who they are and see what their relation is in policy development in their party. That way everybody would know. Everybody would be on the same line.

I want to draw a couple of parallels since our Minister of Health was in the previous parliament minister of justice. When gun control legislation came up, what did he do? He said it is the right thing to do. They set aside money for it. They have alienated half the country. There is a constitutional challenge on it. The government forged ahead in the face of all that opposition. It said $85 million. Now it is up in the region of $600 million. This has not stopped the government one bit from forging ahead with its plan to implement gun control. It is the reason the Liberals lost western Canada. It is the reason that the oppositions combined almost equal the government.

They acted on principle and money was no object. But now when it comes to hepatitis C and people have been hurt and they are going to be for life disadvantaged because of their illness, what is the response? Now it is political consideration. We have all the provinces on board. But the government does not have the people of Canada on board.

Yes, it has the provincial health ministers in line just as it is trying to line up its backbench supporters, but I bet a number of them will vote for this.

If the government wants to make this a vote of non-confidence that would certainly please us, but it is not to be a motion of non-confidence. As a previous member said, it is a motion to move the government to action. That is what we want to see.

Earlier when the Liberals were the government they compensated people who had the wrong kind of insulation in their homes because it might injure their health. there was a statistical possibility that it may have injured people's health. But did they know it was a dangerous product when they proposed that it be put in people's houses? Probably not. Did it matter? No. They removed the insulation and compensated homeowners for what was happening.

To get back to my Bill C-68 comparison, the gun control legislation applies not to criminals but to every Canadian who owns a gun. But here the government is saying that is too much to apply a law to those people who have been hurt by tainted blood products. That is all we are asking. Target this thing. The government does not have to pay everybody for everything. We want to see some compassion. There are compelling arguments for it and they have been made time and time again today.

We heard bogus arguments raised against it like tainted insulin, as if lack of having treatment was equivalent to mistreatment. That does not hold water. I cannot understand where the Liberals are going. As I said, they are not under a vote of non-confidence here but they are losing the confidence of the Canadian people. They bring dishonour on this House if they enforce party discipline to defeat this supply day motion. I will be ashamed to be associated with this House if it fails.

I call on members from the governing party to join with the opposition members in doing the right thing and bring honour to this House by supporting the supply day motion next Tuesday.

I trust there will be a groundswell of support, that people will be phoning constituency offices across this country to show their support. I trust that the ministers' fax lines and e-mails will be loaded by Canadians letting them know, that their phone lines will be jammed and their mailmen will walk in like Santa Claus dumping mail on their office floors. That is what we want to see happen across this country between now and next Tuesday.

[Nunavut Act, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take 15 minutes. My intervention will be brief.

It has been brought to my attention since I last spoke in this debate that we were being somewhat critical of the people of the Northwest Territories which is not so. If we are critical of anyone, we are critical of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, particularly the minister, for its handling of the entire Northwest Territories.

The territories suffer a 30% unemployment rate and high suicide. They have poor health, reduced life expectancy, not to mention other social problems. This has happened during the administration of the previous Tory and current Liberal governments. We feel that the previous government completely failed the people of the Northwest Territories in developing its economy and its society. This bill should be amended and passed.

We feel that the new government being established will have a far greater chance to develop a vision for its people, to implement it and to give its people hope. It has been written that without a vision people will perish. We want to see these people and their families move ahead and prosper economically and socially. We want the very best for these people which they have not been getting.

The legislation moves power downward toward the people who will be governed. That should mean that the people of the Northwest Territories will have more influence on their government. I am sure this will produce better government in the eastern Arctic. We support them in that endeavour.

We call for an elected senator and we make our support for this bill conditional upon that. We feel that better government includes people being able to pick their representatives in this place.

We question the government on its evasiveness and lack of preparedness in answering questions about cost. Early estimates of the cost of establishing Nunavut were in the range of $150 million. That did not happen. A later estimate made in October 1997 set the price in the order of $300 million which is double the cost. If they know why that is, they are not willing to say. So we do not know. We know it will cost more to increase the government because there will be another government in place in Nunavut. We would like to see a reduction in the size of DIAND to compensate for the increased cost of establishing and maintaining this new government.

We as the official opposition have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada to ask questions about this and to get direct answers from the government on these matters. We cannot simply stand by, clap our hands, say that is wonderful and whatever the cost, we approve of it 100%. We are not standing in the way of these people achieving their goal but we want to know what the cost will be and how it will be offset in reduced costs for DIAND. That is a major concern our party has with this legislation at this time.

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to something as important as the creation of this new territory of Nunavut. I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the people themselves on this auspicious day when we are debating the bill to create the Nunavut territory.

Now that the time of official establishment of the territory is getting close it is reassuring to see that the government is making sure, through the first part of this bill and its many amendments to the original Nunavut Act, that the territory is going to be a little more effective.

I would like to state my support for the amendment moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition, which was seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, who is the critic for Indian affairs and northern development.

I would urge hon. members of the opposition parties as well as all democratically minded members of the government to support Reform's amendment. This amendment only makes sense. The people of Nunavut should be consulted on how their senator is selected, the same as they have had a chance to voice their opinion on the many other political procedures that will govern them.

I would like to add that this amendment makes all the more sense when we take into consideration the fact that the people of Nunavut are taking a whole new approach to government in the territory. Their new ideas on government have been encouraged and are being put into practice in this bill.

The people of Nunavut are adopting a system in which the legislature will have no political parties. Members will be elected without party platforms. This form of government, while not generally adopted by Canadians as a whole, recognizes the unique character of this piece of Canada. Implementing non-party government recognizes and accedes to a desire for a different form of government, one to replace the status quo.

We are calling on the government at this time to take the logical next step, to give the people of Nunavut the right to select their representative and to send him or her to Ottawa as their own representative for their region in that place which was supposedly established for the protection of the regions.

The Prime Minister now makes all Senate appointments. He recommends the governor general. He names all nine supreme court justices and the heads and members of all federal boards, panels, commissions and agencies. It is not too much to expect that Canada in general and Nunavut in particular be spared one more Liberal crony in the upper chamber.

In light of this, I ask whether it makes any sense at all that the people of Nunavut who have a refreshing approach to everything else and who get to do everything else differently should have their senator be some Liberal hack appointed by the Prime Minister. The answer is no. It just does not make any sense at all. The two just do not go together.

The people of Nunavut have offered interesting new ideas and approaches to government. Those ideas and approaches are based on their cultural background.

The government, with this bill, has the chance to do the same. Will the government take this opportunity to offer those fresh new ideas for once and implement them?

I would like to remind members that earlier today the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said in her speech “We have to ensure that the voice and representation of the people of the Northwest Territories and the western Arctic and eastern Arctic is heard in the Senate”.

We could not agree more. We want to ensure that the people of Nunavut have representation in the Senate and not the other way around. What we do not want to see is some Liberal Party hack appointed to the Senate to represent the people of Nunavut, rubber stamping Liberal policies when he bothers to come to Ottawa at all.

We call on this House to support the amendment of the official opposition so that the people of Nunavut have a say in how their senator is elected.

We look forward to the passage of the Reform amendment, the ensuing election and the welcoming of the Nunavut senator to Parliament upon his or her appointment.

If the amendment is defeated it will be with a lot less enthusiasm that the official opposition will support the bill.

Given all the positive reasons for holding a Senate election put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition and supported by our members, it should pass—

[Volunteers, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pride to salute this country's unsung heroes during this, their special week, national volunteer week. I am particularly proud of the volunteers in my riding who daily give of themselves to make the Prince Albert constituency a great place to live and work.

Last month the governor general saw fit to honour 53 such dedicated volunteers across Canada with his annual Caring Canadian Award.

On that short list of 53 were 3 of my own constituents and I recognize them for their accomplishments today. On behalf of their neighbours, friends and fellow residents in the riding of Prince Albert I congratulate Marilyn Brown, Ralph Hjertaas from the city of Prince Albert and Marie-Jeanne Leblanc of the community of Zenon Park.

They all exemplify the daily extraordinary courage and behind the scenes effort that the governor general seeks to reward. I salute them and all volunteers this week.

[Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to fetal alcohol syndrome or FAS which is having devastating effects on its victims, their families and society.

Last week in my riding of Prince Albert 100 people had to be turned away from an overcrowded presentation about this burgeoning problem.

Here are some of the facts. Fetal alcohol syndrome and its milder form of fetal alcohol effects have been called the leading cause of mental retardation in the western world. A recent study conducted in British Columbia showed that 23% of its young offender population had FAS and a further 12% had a milder form. It is estimated that 15% of adult prison populations suffer from one or both.

FAS is not reversible. It is a life sentence. It would be appropriate for the House to act to end this national disaster. The unborn have the right to a full life unhindered by fetal alcohol syndrome.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the chief of the Tsuu T'ina reserve is allowed to conduct his own investigation, we know we will not hear the full story. If the Assembly of First Nations runs the investigation, we know it will gloss over the problems as well. They will not answer the real questions, like why Connie and her family lived in shantytown conditions on one of Canada's richest reserves. The only way we will ever know is for an independent inquiry to look into the root causes of the tragedy.

What will the minister's response to these tragic deaths be? A real independent inquiry or a series of cover-ups?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-36 and the Reform amendment. It was great to see the budget finally balanced. It is what Reformers have been calling for, for years.

We want to make it perfectly clear that we have reservations with respect to the budget. One of the first and most important is the provision of the millennium scholarship fund. We have been advocating for years that there needs to be greater funding for post-secondary education. We were advocating putting money back into the CHST during the 1993 election.

The big problem is that the auditor general has found the government to be distorting the financial statements to make itself look good in this House and elsewhere. The auditor general gave an interview in which he said “You cannot record something just because you announce the intention of doing something. There is a difference between an expenditure and a future commitment”.

We have in this country families who intend to have children, but an intention expressed does not mean they qualify for the child tax benefit. The day the government is willing to hand out a benefit based on an intention will be the day when it would be within its purview to announce an intention and have it show up in a budget as if it had been an expenditure. We just do not accept that at all.

We also find that while the budget is balanced it has been balanced by increasing expenditures. It is no secret that interest rates in Canada came down not as a result of government actions but as a result of a worldwide phenomenon. The government has certainly garnered the benefit from that. However, it is not as a result of its doings. The government's reductions in direct program spending amount to 5.3% and it has increased the amount it has taken from taxpayers by 71%. We are not giving the government any kudos for that.

We also find that the government is refusing to reindex to inflation the personal income tax system. It had an opportunity to do that in this budget, but it did not.

As well, Canada pension plan payments will be increasing year in and year out. From our research it appears that by the year 2000-2001 there will be roughly $9,000 more in net tax burden for Canadians. I do not think there is anybody in this House or anybody in this country who thinks they will be that much better off in 2000-2001 to be able to carry that extra tax load.

I would like to leave this House with a couple of word pictures because they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

During the cold war there was a policy called MAD. It was an acronym for mutually assured destruction. It was an assurance that no one would survive in the event of a nuclear war. Everybody would lose and nobody would win. I would like to propose a new meaning for that acronym, which is that Canada has the mother of all debt in this country at this time. Our debt is $576 billion. It has been said a lot of times in this House and it has been said a lot of times across Canada, but not everybody knows it yet, so it certainly is not lost on Canadians to say it one more time.

We feel that Canadians have not been completely apprised of the debt they have. I just spoke in a high school in my riding and unfortunately some of the young people there did not know it. When they heard how much it was and how much they personally are inheriting from previous as well as present governments they were not one bit happy. MAD describes their state of mind as well.

We are definitely opposed to the continuation of spending and taxing and the maintenance of a debt which we do not have to have in this country. There would have been a balance left over this year if it had not been spent. We would like to see that go back to the people.

Taking that nuclear bomb illustration a little further, what is the fallout from a debt bomb? We have the highest taxes in the G-7. Bracket creep erodes every person's income in this country. The danger of overspending is that there will be a slight rise in interest rates and all of a sudden we will be back into deficit spending. Nobody wants that, particularly the young people of this country.

We have high unemployment and low wages. Wages can only get lower as the cost of doing business goes up with the taxes that are locked in by this budget.

Canadians are mad. They wanted tax relief, they expected tax relief, but they did not get tax relief. They are upset that the debt will not decrease this year. They did not want a millennium fund to polish the Prime Minister's image. What they wanted was real tax relief.

This is another illustration from the cold war. There was a movie called “Dr. Strangelove”. I cannot quite recall its subtitle, but it went something along these lines: “How I overcame my fear and learned to love the bomb”.

We have a debt bomb in this country. We have a Prime Minister and a finance minister who have overcome their fear of the debt bomb. They have learned to love it. They want to pass it on to Canadians.

At the end of that movie the mad scientist, sitting astride his bomb, was having the ride of his life. I believe that is an accurate description of our government today. It is astride the debt bomb, it loves it and it wishes everyone could be aboard.

Canadians want off. They do not want to ride this to its obvious conclusion. At the end of the movie we did not see what happened to Dr. Strangelove, but we know what the end will be if we do not get our debt under control.

We do not want debt in this country. We do not want higher spending. We do not want taxes. What we want and what the Reform Party is calling for is responsible government. We oppose Bill C-36. I oppose it on behalf of my constituents.